Adventure-Class Starships in T5

[PFVA63]

The transition in bridge crew size (assuming that larger ships actually need a larger bridge crew) should probably be gradual and not jump abruptly from a Bridge crew of 2 (Pilot, Navigator) for a 990 dTon ship to 11 for a 1010 dTon ship. (That is why I use 1 bridge station per 100 dTons IMTU.) If it comes down to ‘Imperial Regulations’, then I see a need for a lot of small crew 999.9 dTon starships to replace the super freighters on lucrative routes.

Hi,

Just as an aside, in real world coastal and ocean going ships you do actually end up with issues like this, with break points in the rules governing how ships are built and operated. In the US Coast Guard's rules Small Passenger Vessels under 100GT and with less than 150 passengers (also called Subchapter T boats) are treated differently than larger passenger ships, with the different types having to meet different criteria etc. As such, since Gross Tonnage (GT) is a measure of enclosed volume, designers have in the past gotten very clever on how the layout the vessel's so that some space is not counted in the GT calcs.

Several years ago I recall reading an article on how the "notional" 100GT Subchapter T boats were progressively getting bigger and bigger. I think the US Coast Guard may have worked to clean things up a bit since then, but I believe that there is still a noticeable break in Passenger Vessels in the US at the 100GT mark.

I suppose that stuff like this is part of the reason why I am OK with having separate rules in Traveller for large and small ships.

Anyway, just thought I'd pass the info along.

Regards

PF

 

[Andrew Boulton]

1. The PP is not TL sensitive.

Then it's broken, because PPs are *very* TL sensitive.

 

[robject]

Then it's broken, because PPs are *very* TL sensitive.

As far as a draft can be broken, you're probably right. But I've not seen the rules yet.

The only reason to think that PPs may be TL sensitive is that all T5 equipment can be subject to quality modifiers, and quality can vary with tech level.

 

[robject]

Gazelle-class Close Escort (Type EC, TL14)

The close escort is built using a 300-ton hull with a partially streamlined configuration. It is fitted with jump drive-H, maneuver drive-H, and power plant-L, and is capable of jump-5 and maneuver-5. It has 83 tons of fuel, 33 tons of which are used for power plant operation for up to 3 weeks. To this basic package is added disposable 100-ton fuel tanks to provide the total fuel necessary for the drives. However, with these tanks installed, the ship tonnage is increased to 400 tons, which reduces the ship's performance to 4-G and jump-4. The tanks may be dropped to allow the higher performance, but the ship then becomes restricted by its lower fuel supply (to one Jump-1 and 33 days’ operation, or one Jump-2 and 14 days’ operation) until the tanks are replaced. The ship has fuel scoops and a purification plant, and can refuel by skimming gas giants. The standard bridge has a Model/6 computer installed and the ship has four hardpoints. Two of the hardpoints allow five tons each, which allows the installation of particle accelerator barbettes if desired. The remaining two hardpoints sport triple laser turrets. The ship hull is heavily armored. The ship has eight staterooms, four for officers and four for double occupancy by crew members, and eight tons of extra living space. There is 2 tons cargo space.



A 20-ton gig, itself armed with a laser mount, is slung beneath the ship, with interlocking hatches provided. The gig is capable of 6-G and carries six acceleration couches and three emergency low berths. It can also carry two tons of cargo.



The close escort, complete with gig, costs MC289.23. The disposable fuel tanks cost MCr 11 when purchased separately. The gig costs MCr27.65 when purchased separately.

Volume  Component                Price
(300)   Hull-C LDK                12
  24    Advanced Dense-18(R36)     0.68  ?
  20    Bridge (6 consoles)        -
        -  Computer model/6       40
         1   Communicator-8        0.05    Long Range
         1   Visor-14              0.1
         2   Scanner-15            0.2
         1   Field Sensor-15       0.1     High Orbit
         1   Mass Sensor-14        0.1     High Orbit
  45    Jump drive-H (J1)         70
  15    Maneuver drive-H (1G)     32
  34    Power plant-L             56
  83    Fuel                       -
  12    Fuel purifier (50t)        9   ?
   4    Hardpoints                 -
   2    PA Barbettes-12 (2)       25   ?
   1    Beam Laser Turrets-9 (2)   5   ?
  32    Staterooms (8)             4
   8    Open space                 -   ?
  20    Gig                       25
   2    Cargo                      -
(100    Droptanks)                10
------- -------------------- ----------
                             MCr 289.23

 

[WingOver]

Interjection by a lowlife lurker

I would like to interject my thoughts into the discussion about bridge sizes and bridge crew requirements.
Due to automation, a single person can pilot any TL-8 vehicle and with redundant systems, any vehicle could be able to conduct their designed operation sans human “interference” even without the incorporation of AI. The avionics aboard today’s production aircraft are capable flying an aircraft along a predetermined route from wheels up to landing and bringing the aircraft to a full stop on the runway with minimum manual input. A few more servos and some lines of code and an aircraft, at the press of one button, could complete an entire mission from engine start to shutdown with no crew aboard.
One might ask, if all this is possible “why have a crew?” The answer to that is when the fecal matter hits the atmosphere recirculation unit you need a sophont capable of abstract thought to adapt to constantly changing conditions and make decisions based on limited information.
As a professional pilot type rated in the Dassault Falcon 10, under nominal conditions I am capable of flying it solo. That includes flying, navigating, communicating, and operating the weather radar in an aircraft of 1970’s vintage. However, in heavy weather at night with multiple systems failures I would be severely task saturated with a reduced chance of survival. With a second pilot up there with me, I can reduce my task saturation by sharing the workload with my co-pilot thereby increasing my chance of survival 200%.
Bridge size and bridge crew compliment should be at the discretion of the designer, considering expected mission requirements. With TL-10+ technology, it is conceivable that an “Adventure Class” spacecraft or starship with proper systems redundancy should be operable by a single, properly trained pilot. However, when that ship is flying through a planetary belt dodging a Corsair and trying to compute a sub-100D jump with a faulty navigation computer it would be nice to have some help up front.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

There's a great Stephen Fry quote about this:

"The flight crew of the future will consist of one man and a dog. The job of the man will be to feed the dog. The job of the dog will be to bite the man if he tries to touch anything."

 

[WingOver]

T5 deck plans

Andrew, any chance I can convince you to create a cutaway view of your Wilderness Traveler? It is a tasty ship and a cutaway view would really add to the flavour.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Eek. That's gonna involve hard work. I'll have to think about it.

 

[WingOver]

I know, thats why asked if you could do it. heh Maybe if someone here communicates with MAG, they could show him how cool that ship is.

 

[Foxroe]

Here's my take on the CT bridge volume minimum:

A spacecraft requires a fixed volume of some control equipment consisting of stuff "A", regardless of the ship's size. It's whatever is needed to control a spacecraft in-system, which isn't much compared to a starship, because there's no ability to jump.

On the other hand, a starship requires this same exact volume of "A", but due to the fact that it is larger and jump-capable, it also needs some fixed volume of stuff "B", whatever this stuff may be (I always assumed it was additional control hardware needed to make a jump). For simplicity's sake, volume of A + volume of B was about 20 tons. I imagined that since the minimum was 20dt, all starships probably needed at least that much gadgetry just to get around, regardless of size.

Once the starships start to get much larger than 400 tons, volume of "B" is no longer sufficient for safe operation of the ship, so it's volume has to increase accordingly. Hence the difference between 2% of total volume and the minimum of 20dt.

Also, I always figured that starships didn't necessarily need all of the equipment "up front" in a cockpit-type setup. So you could still have a small, centralized control area if you desired, but everything else would be remotely operated and dispersed throughout the design.

Now, that being said. It was always a simple matter to me as a GM to justify letting an innovative character (with say, Engineering-3 or similar skill) figure out that he could go through his ship and "trim the fat", removing a lot of redundant features. This would free up little (or maybe not so little) pockets of space throughout the vessel, decreasing the "bridge" displacement, but buying back a few tons of cargo space here and there... Excellent for smuggling or putting in that jacuzzi he always wanted, but perhaps at a cost during the heat of battle, in the form of a negative DM... :devil:

- Fox

 

[PFVA63]

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread

Pocket Trader (type ??):

Using a 100-ton hull, the pocket trader is intended for trade along safe routes. It mounts jump drive-A, maneuver drive-A, and power plant-A, giving performance of jump-2 and 2-G acceleration. A 22-ton fuel tank provides fuel for the power plant and provides sufficient fuel for one jump-2. Adjacent to its bridge is a computer Model/3. There are six staterooms and six low berths. One hybrid LMS turret with its fire control is installed on the ship's hardpoint. There are no vehicles. Cargo capacity amounts to 25 tons. The hull is a floatation hull with a lift body configuration, equipped with landing gear legs with pads.

The pocket trader requires a crew of one, assuming the duties of pilot, astrogator, and engineer. The ship costs MCr 29.6 and takes 9 months to build.

Volume  Component                   Price
(100)   Hull-A LDK                   2
  10    Half Bridge (3 consoles) -
        -  Computer model/3
        3  sensors                   1
  10    Jump drive-A (J2)           10
   1    Maneuver drive-A (2G)        4
   4    Power plant-A                8
  22    Fuel
  24    Staterooms (6)               3
   3    Low berths (6)               0.6
   1    Hybrid LMS turret            1
  25    Cargo
------- ----------------------- --------
                                MCr 29.6

Hi,

I've been messing around with Hexagon again lately, and thought I'd try something new. I remembered this post that you did on the Pocket Trader, which seemed like a really neet concept to me, so I decided to try and put something together for it. As I played around with trying to lay out the spaces, I began to suspect that maybe a Scout like wedge might not be the best shape for a ship like this, and since your writeup described it as having a lifting body hull, I tried something a little different. Here is an early image of what I have so far. Hopefully later this weekend I might be able to do up some deck plans.

Anyway, just thought I'd share what I have.

Regards

PF

 

[robject]

Cute! It reminds me more of a trader than a scout, which fits the concept.

 

[DonM]

If you're going to post any more T5 material to to this topic, we should probably pull it "behind the wall" to the Private Forum.

 

[atpollard]

If you're going to post any more T5 material to to this topic, we should probably pull it "behind the wall" to the Private Forum.

Booo. Hissss. Elitist.

Actually, nothing here appears to be revealing "secrets" from the PDFs. There are a lot of people interested in T5 who are not comfortable with 'pre-ordering' and (quite fairly) do not have access 'behind the wall'.

The elimination of all public discussion on T5 would not, in my opinion, be a good thing for T5. In the end, do as you please. It isn't THAT big of a deal either way.

 

[robject]

If you're going to post any more T5 material to to this topic, we should probably pull it "behind the wall" to the Private Forum.

I've always considered these draft ship designs to be both useful and propaganda.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

If you're going to post any more T5 material to to this topic, we should probably pull it "behind the wall" to the Private Forum.

Hi,

Sorry, hope there's no problem. Initially I wasn't sure where to post my stuff, since it really didn't seem directly related to the stuff currently being discussed in the private forum, but rather it was more just some stuff I had been messing around with that had been inspired by a post on the public forum from last year (that just happened to be related to T5).

If you think its best, I can take the stuff offline till there's a more relevant time to discuss it.

Regards

PF

 

[atpollard]

Initially I wasn't sure where to post my stuff, since it really didn't seem directly related to the stuff currently being discussed in the private forum, but rather it was more just some stuff I had been messing around with that had been inspired by a post on the public forum from last year (that just happened to be related to T5).

PF:
I like your design, a lot.
I'm a little fuzzy on the actual size of the design.
Is it to scale? How large are the grid squares?

 

[PFVA63]

Hi - Pocket Trader Ship

Hi,

I've been messing around a little more with the hull I've tried to put together for a 100dt Pocket Trader type craft and here are a couple images of the ship that I have come up with. Overall, I ended up having to shorten the hull a little and also had to increase its height a little, as shown below.

Next, is a cross section view of the ship, showing the deck heights, and stuff. As shown here the lower deck includes the cargo space, and the upper decks contain the accommodations (and bridge). Outboard of these spaces are the main fuel tanks. In order to fit everything in, I had to make the outer edge of the accomodation spaces slope down a little in order to fit within the hull, but I figure this is in line with the stuff in a lot of the versions of Traveller where the 3-3.1m deck height is listed as an average value, and I can probably put some windows there as well.

Next, is an image of the lower deck of the ship, showing how the spaces are layed out. On the left side of the ship is the low berths and the main passenger/crew entrance, which I figure might be kind of like a door on some passenger planes, where the door opens downwards with an extending ladder. On the right hand side of the ship is a larger cargo handling door, and aft is the lower level of the machinery space. The red line is a trace of the hull at the lower edge of this space (0.7m above the bottom of the hull), while the yellow line is a trace of the hull at the top of the lower deck (2.3m above the red line).

Finally, below is a layout of the upper deck. Here the green line is a trace of the hull at the lower edge of this deck (3.7m above the bottom of the hull), while the light blue line is a trace of the hull 2.3m above that line. On this deck you can see the upper level of the machinery space aft, and the accommodations spaces (with a commons area, a small laundry, and a kitchen) forward of this. Additionally on this deck is an airlock (nears the top of the stairs from the lower deck) and the bridge (with an adjacent water closet/bathroom).

I haven't really had a chance to lay out the machinery spaces or bridge yet (and I need to include a ladder in the machinery space to connect the upper and lower levels). Maybe later if I get more time, I'll try and add some more of these detials.

Regards

PF

 

[PFVA63]

Two other quick images...

Hi,

Here are two other quick images I put together. The 1st one just shows a quick cut along the centerline of the ship. And the 2nd shows a real rough 3D image. I through both of them together quickly, and I'm hoping to try and clean them up and add details and texturs and stuff later.

Regards

PF

 

[far-trader]

Great stuff PF! I can even forgive the need to scroll sideways Please carry on